Stadia

[Waterways]

LFC have been granted planning permission for their stadium in Stanley Park. They desperately need a high throughput Merseyrail station. Hence the adjacent, well not that near, Canada Dock Branch Line being considered for Merseyrail. EFC at Kirkby need the Kirkby station, which is not on the doorstep, enlarging to give a high throughput.

There is no joined up thinking. It would be best to have a station under the two stadia to allow fans to access the stands directly. This is what happens at the Amsterdam Arena, home of Ajax.

But closer to home, and opposite me, Lords Cricket ground are proposing the same. The ground consists of the main cricket ground and right next to it is the Nursery end, which was used for practising. Named so because it was a nursery at one time. Tunnels using the cut and cover method were run under the Nursery end for access to Marylebone station in the 1890s. One one tunnel serves Marylebone station while the other two were for storingh trains. and are now disused. They propose using the through tunnel as a station for direct access to the stands and the other two for a gym, sports injuries treatment, or whatever.
Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article3716497.ece?Submitted=true)

Below the three tunnels under the Nursery end, being built. Lords only own the top 18" of land and can't put large buildings up. Now they can as they have bought two of the tunnels.
http://i29.tinypic.com/et9kat.jpg

Integrated stations is what LFC and EFC should be made to incorporate into their stadia. It all makes so much sense. A high throughput rapid transit rail link must be a precursor for a new stadium. No link. No Stadium.

[Ged]

How about the Cherry Lane line. Would do away with the away fans being escorted all the way down Kirkdale road and Scotland Road to Limey. You could even put a branch line in from what is already and extensively in place.

[Waterways]

How about the Cherry Lane line. Would do away with the away fans being escorted all the way down Kirkdale road and Scotland Road to Limey. You could even put a branch line in from what is already and extensively in place.


Ged, that is the Canada Dock Branch Line which is used for freight and the only line left into the docks. There is talk is introducing another, where from I don't know. Look at this: Extending Merseyrail (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Merseyrail-Extensions.html)

A branch off the Canada Dock Line using heavy-rail Merseyrail trains would be a long sweeping curve. Light-rail trains, like London's Docklands, can negotiate tight curves making extension to Merseyrail more suitable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/DLR-WestIndiaDocks-1.jpg/250px-DLR-WestIndiaDocks-1.jpg

Light-rail trains can be strung together to long lengths and turn tight curves. Merseyrail rolling stock is due for replacement in around 4 years. Light or medium rail trains should be bought replacing the legacy and expensive to buy and run existing heavy-rail trains.

It is possible to tunnel off Canada Dock Branch and up Utting Avenue using cut and cover tunnelling. This would be ideal and it maybe it could extend further and right into the unserved Scotland Rd districts and onto the Northern Line at a convenient point. There is enough open land between Stanley Park and the Loop, which would mean cheap cut and cover tunnelling at lot of the way and down the Kingsway approach Rd to the Northern Line.

Kirkby is easier to solve. Redirect the line to the stadium or re-locate the stadium to the line Best to relocate the line and get it nearer the centre of Kirkby. The line also goes to Wigan and onto Manchester.

The great thing about Kirkby is that specials can be run from Manchester direct to the stadium.

I prefer Walton Hall Park or Long Lane Industrial Estate for EFC. There is a disused tunnel from Kirkdale to the Rice Lane flyover. The tunnel is still run under the flyover junction as the lines were only lifted in 1975. Skirting the park the track beds of the old curves are still there - look at Google they are clear. This connects onto the outer loop line trackbed that goes to West Derby/Broad Green/Childwall/Gatacre/Hunts Cross/South Parkway. Merseyrail can then go back to the centre via Kirkdale and the other way onto South Parkway for the London line and the Manchester line. A station may be built at Rice Lane or anywhere in one of the tunnel cuttings.

Th red is the disused tunnel from Kirkdale station (bottom left) to the Rice Lane Flyover. An Everton stadium can be just over the junction in Walton Hall Park. The white dotted lines are the old trackbeds and lead off to bottom right is the outer loop line that goes to West Derby and then onto South Parkway. It can form a complete loop via the city centre.

The Outer Loop can branch onto the Kirkby line and an EFC stadium built at Long Lane Industrial estate as the council suggested. Two birds killed with one stone.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2ij6u83.jpg
Courtesy of Multimap

The disused tunnel:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/w/walton_on_the_hill/

http://i32.tinypic.com/29yio40.jpg
The Outer Loop Line's Bridges are still in Place

There is no joined up thinking. All is there waiting for someone to think it all together. Merseyside has a high throughput rapid transit rail system,. No stadium should be be given planning permission unless they build as a part of the stadium, or just nearby, a Merseyrail station. It is madness not too!!!!!

[Ged]

Are you sure there is a disused tunnel from Kirkdale to Rice Lane flyover, what would it have previously served? The exisiting tunnel/line from Kirkdale to the next station at Walton/Rice lane (depending on whether your destination is Kirkby or Ormskirk seems to run close enough to Walton Hall Park anyway or as I say, a branch off the Cherry Lane/Canada dock branch line would suffice.

[Waterways]

Are you sure there is a disused tunnel from Kirkdale to Rice Lane flyover, what would it have previously served? The exisiting tunnel/line from Kirkdale to the next station at Walton/Rice lane (depending on whether your destination is Kirkby or Ormskirk seems to run close enough to Walton Hall Park anyway or as I say, a branch off the Cherry Lane/Canada dock branch line would suffice.

Ged there is a tunnel. I have added a map below. The subbrit site I linked to also shows the tunnel. Reusing this tunnel would also get the outer loop up and running. A station can be under the stadium and keep fans away from residents (I live next to a major sports venue and know what it is like. The residents are forming an action committee to prevent further expansion). This rail line is one way to Liverpool centre the other to South Parkway and major connections to London/Mcr, etc. The trackbeds are still there. A win, win as the major Queens Drive is there and easy roads out to the M57/M62.

A line needs to be a through line not a branch line terminus, as it can be used on non-matchdays by the community and Norris Green, West Derby, Gatacre, etc are on Merseyrail too.

Any "nearby" station is small and will not have the throughput to cope with a large stadium. With a station in the stadium a park and ride can be at many Merseyrail stations. When thinking of Merseyrail, think of London's Tube. I find people in Liverpool do not value this superb rapid transit system they have, and think of roads and buses first.

[Waterways]

If Tesco go along with a move to Walton Hall Park, they will be sandwiched between an ASDA and a Sainsburys.

[Ged]

That tunnel already seems to continue beyond the rice land flyover/roundabout around the perimeter curve of the park.

However....

They'll never build a stadium in a certain location just because a disused railway line already exists nearby and the fact Tesco will have competition but in Kirkby, their be all and end all choice, they won't and want a presence there seems to be the deciding factor since they're putting the money into it. In fact the cpo buying up has already started, even ahead of the ruling for the stadium getting the go ahead so they must be confident of the outcome.

[Waterways]

That tunnel already seems to continue beyond the rice land flyover/roundabout around the perimeter curve of the park.

However....

They'll never build a stadium in a certain location just because a disused railway line already exists nearby and the fact Tesco will have competition but in Kirkby, their be all and end all choice, they won't and want a presence there seems to be the deciding factor since they're putting the money into it. In fact the cpo buying up has already started, even ahead of the ruling for the stadium getting the go ahead so they must be confident of the outcome.

Ged, in dumb Liverpool, where the glass is always half empty, not half full, they may not build a stadium near a rapid transit rail line. How did LFCs Stanley Park stadium get the go ahead without a rapid transit rail link? It wouldn't happen in London or any other city with a rapid transit rail system, as that would be a precursor - no link, no stadium. My first post is about Lords proposing a station under their ground. Merseyside has a very good system that can easily be much, much better, but ignored by the city who wanted silly trams.

I know about the cpo's. And I know what Tesco want. However, this scheme kills many birds with one stone. Walton Hall Park has been suggested in the past by many, but having Merseyrail run in and a station under the stadium, this makes matters different.


It gets the outer loop in operation and many districts onto Merseyrail.
A large stadium is served by rapid transit rail reducing the nuisance value to residents.
Fans have easy rail access to the city centre
Fans have easy connections all of Merseyside.
Fans have easy connections to beyond Merseyside at South Parkway.
The outer loop shift fans to the south and north of the city in both directions from the stadium.
The stadium is still in Walton where Everton FC still live.
The park is ideal for safety purposes.
Easy road access with trunk roads nearby.
The location has low nuisance value.
EFC are still inside Liverpool city


The club and community benefit. Maybe the council could make the stadium a small self contained shopping complex and with a bit of CPO Sainsburys can merge into the shopping complex - only a few houses separate Sainsburys from the park - the stadium could be on the park near to Sainburys. Tesco will be happy with a direct rail station, as will Sainsburys and any other retailer who sets up.

The tunnel may continue across the roundabout, it did until 1975. It may have been blocked at one point, but an easy job to re-instate. All the trackbed is there and even a complete station at West Derby. The council foolishly allowed some buildings to be built on parts of the old Walton-on-hiill station between the roundabout and the park. A few CPO's may be required. A line can come from the tunnel and directly into the park and stadium. A small bit of tunnelling may preclude CPO's

[Ged]

Agreed but Tesco are the men with the money and they don't care if the fastest trains in the west pass Wally hall park or if there's stations there with marble staircases, it ain't gonna happen cos they want Kirkby where there's no competition.

[Waterways]

Agreed but Tesco are the men with the money and they don't care if the fastest trains in the west pass Wally hall park or if there's stations there with marble staircases, it ain't gonna happen cos they want Kirkby where there's no competition.

The city, or the country, should have a strict policy that stadia have integrated rapid transit rail links where they exist. If it is there use it as all benefit. Common sense. Keep nuisance value of masses of people at bay by taking them directly into the stadium. If a stadium is built in Walton Hall Park and a station is under it, it can have 6 platforms. To shift 30,000 per hour, that takes trains which hold say 900 people each. That is 34 trains in a hour, which is one leaving every 1.76 minutes. Totally possible using modern signalling systems, as the Jubilee line in London has trains 30 seconds apart. Trains can leave in less than 1.76 minutes using 6 platforms. Also trains would be running both ways at Walton Hall Park, so you probably could shift far more than 30,000 an hour.

Then if the stadium has comprehensive facilities inside, fans will stay behind after games and take later trains, then in a 60,000 crowd, 40,000 could be shifted by rapid transit rail. That is, these people are not on the streets around or on roads in cars or taking up parking. Traffic jams are minimal.

If the Kirkdale to Rice Lane tunnel and Outer Loop is re-commissioned, then a full loop is formed via the centre, South Parkway and Kirkdale. The trains would just run around the loop both ways until the fans are dispersed. Then no stabling of trains at a terminus or shuffling a large amount of trains or having to reverse and change tracks or whatever to get back to the stadium.

If a policy of integrating stadia and rail is implemented, then Tesco would have to look at even Kirkby differently. Currently the inadequate Merseyrail station at Kirkby, not at the stadium, is not even considered seriously by Tesco/EFC. They don't care if they clog up the place leaving frustrated people all over, even EFCs own fans. They view the essential rapid transit as someone else's problem. The inquiry should reject the EFC stadium on lack of rapid transit rail integration and no plans to give adequate throughput to shift the majority of fans away from the town - most fan will not live in Kirkby. This highlights the lack of thought that has gone into Merseyrail/EFC stadium at Kirkby:
Report on Kirkby re: rail access (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showpost.php?p=179216&postcount=2)

The proposed relocation of Everton Football Club to a new ground in Kirkby is certain to place an intolerable pressure on both rail services and infrastructure.

Having an integrated stadium/store/station is a win, win. as the punters go to the store and stadium directly. Why would Tesco complain as they would get customers from far and wide right into their store by fast metro rail? But that is not the point. EFC and LFC should be made to integrated rapid transit and the stadium. They should not be given a choice. No joined up thinking as usual.

Lords know that to expand the cricket ground (20-20 looks like taking off big time and it only holds 32,000) they know they will not get planning permission to expand unless rapid transit rail is near. OK there is a Tube station not far away but its throughput is poor because of the concourse is poor and cannot cope with high people volumes, only two platforms and locals sometimes cannot use it as the escalators are switched to run only one way to shift the cricket fans, which p1sses the locals off. However having a station under the stadium gets the locals on their side, the planners on their side and Westminster council on their side. Most of the fans are not around the streets and all inside the stadium, then all win.

I would rather have Walton Hall with rapid transit rail, than the Loop in Scotland Road any day. Grants would be available to get the rail system up and running as it would greatly benefit the community at large. The Outer Loop via West Derby was supposed to be on Merseyrail as it was on the original plans but dropped in the 1970/80s. Thatcher clearly finally killed any hope of money available for it to be re-commissioned.

Getting the tunnel that is under the Rice lane flyover roundabout into Walton Hall Park is not a big undertaking, with maybe a new very short section of tunnel cut that can be cut by hand not using a boring machine. Liverpool sandstone rock is soft.

[Waterways]

The rumour is that Lords want 50-60,000 at the stadium to cope for 20-20. The station under the ground is regarded as key to its success. Local residents are forming to counter expansion as they view 20-20 as a new game - it has new rules to a 5 day test. The difference is between 5-a-side football and full 11 a side. Both are football and that is about the only similarity.

Many are wanting 20-20 banned from the venue, and all games under floodlights too. And Lords build a new dedicated large 20-20 stadium elsewhere.

If Lords get the expansion they want, the integrated rapid transit rail station below the stadium is the key.

[redjed1]

Hi Waterways

That actually makes sense. Pity we couldn't talk the two factions into actually sharing a stadium.

Football apart, it would improve transport across the area. The current system is OK if you want to go to the city centre. Getting from the north to the south, without a car, is currently difficult.

[Waterways]

Hi Waterways

That actually makes sense. Pity we couldn't talk the two factions into actually sharing a stadium.

Football apart, it would improve transport across the area. The current system is OK if you want to go to the city centre. Getting from the north to the south, without a car, is currently difficult.

Yes integrating a high throughput rapid transit rail station with stadium is ultra common sense. The planners and council do not value the rail system we have.

Bringing in the outer loop makes one large circle of the city. This gives great route flexibility and brings onto Merseyrail a whole raft of districts.

Getting from north to south on Merseyrail? The northern Line runs from Southport through the north, the city centre and into the south to Hunts X.

What is not served is the east of the city and the central inner-city districts. All these can be brought onto Merseyrail, making it the first choice of transport for the people, as the Paris Metro and London Tube are, not lumbering, dirty slow buses. see:
Extending Meseyrail (http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/Extending_Rapid_Transit_Merseyrail)
This is to be updated.

Getting EFC and LFC to share is ideal. Failing that, both should be made to have a rapid transit link as a part of the stadium structure. Keeping fans, and their cars, out of the surrounding districts should be a part of the thinking behind these proposals. The clubs have everything to gain in that fans directly enter the stadium. Have the facilities and you keep them longer inside and they spend money. The planners have said to LFC, that if they want to get over the 60,000 of the current stadium proposal, of which they have planning permission, they need a rapid transit rail station nearby on the Canada Dock Branch Line. LFC have said they want to get to over 70,000 by expanding the stadium. This was foolish by the city as it should have been a part of the planning no matter what the capacity is - times move on so they should do it properly. It makes sense for LFC to have rail station in the stadium and change the plans.

There was mutterings of closing down Walton Hospital. Next to the hospital is a Merseyrail line. A stadium can be built over the line and 6 platforms built. If the NHS leave the site it is ideal for a stadium, as long as the stadium is built over the line. There is also suitable site around Aintree to put a stadium directly over a Merseyrail line.

[Ged]

John.

Although Walton Hall Park is a good choice and would the council dare knock back the use of a park after giving LFC part of Stanley Park, somebody on another forum has said that the Canada dock branch line couldn't be used as it doesn't merge easily with Merseyrail at Kirkdale as it runs under the station and the line is used for freight with diesel trains and will be busier when the container terminal is expanded.

The biggest stumbling block of all of course is the money men building the stadium are Tesco and the stadium will go where they want or nowhere.

[Waterways]

Ged, Tesco apart for now.

Firstly, Walton Hall Park is run down and not as used as much as it should. It is a decent choice without the Merseyrail links. With them it just sings!!!! It is a win, win all around.

Liverpool has two north end of the city rail loops:


The inner, the Canada Dock Branch,
The outer loop from Hunts X to Aintree or using the curves, Hunts X to the centre via Kirkdale. This can form a complete Merseyrail circle.


For passenger use the outer loop is by far the best if a stadium is involved as one way there is South Parkway interchange and the city centre the other. This line is easy to recommission. The only problem, but small is, redirecting the tunnel at the Rice Lane flyover a few yards into the park. Whoever at the council allowed building onto the disused trackbed curves should be shot. Was it Henshaw? Rail trackbed and tunnels should be left in place "in case", and this is a clear case of "in case". The curves at Halewood have not been built on, neither has the outer loop cvomplet with bridges intact. Just the curves at Walton are built on. The city is projected to be a super-city, so all this disused rail infrastructure is essential for future growth.

Even if no stadium is proposed for Walton Hall Park, a new curve can be built adjacent to the old curve and some short section of tunnelling into the tunnel at Rice lane will bring the outer loop onto Merseyrail.

The Canada Dock Branch only has the advantage of having lines on it. It will be difficult to branch the Canada Dock Branch line onto the Northern Line at Kirkdale as you have mentioned because the two lines are at different levels. The line does not run through station platforms at Kirkdale. It can be merged by running the line after it emerges from under Kirkdale and Bankhall stations on the way to adjacent Canada Dock, and swinging south in a tight curve and merging into the Northern Line south of Kirkdale station. Light-rail trains would need to be used to negotiate the curve.

At the other end of the Canada Dock Branch Line is Edge Hill junction with no Merseyrail electric connections. So, this line will run into Mainline Lime Street only. I can't see them electrifying this line and only diesel trains used, and maybe only on matchdays with only one three stations used: Anfield, Edge Hill and Lime Street. Then how many would this station at Cherry Lane? It will only take you to Edge Hill or Lime Street and give city-wide coverage.

It is possible to have an interchange station at Kirkdale in the deep cutting, and steps to the higher level Merseyrail platforms. The Kirkdale platforms would make the line feasible for everyday use, so some hope. It would be run by slow Northern Rail diesels. It is a point to point line, unless the line is merged into the Northern Line at Kirkdale or the tunnel branch from Central station is bored and merged into the Wapping tunnel, which is unlikely for a mainly 30 day a year football line.

It is easy to see that the outer loop is the by far the better option:


It merges into Merseyrail easily and forms a complete loop.
On matchdays trains just need to stay on the loop and run in and out of the stadium station. This make matters very easy for Merseyrail operation in getting the trains in and out of the stadium and shifts people fast.
Also two ways into the city centre and Wirral connections
Two ways to South Parkway for away fans.
Easy change at Sandhills to Southport and Ormskirk
Easy changes at Kirkdale for Kirkby (and Skem when that comes on-line)
Easy change to the airport when that comes on line
It brings onto line many districts that really need a rapid transit rail connection.
It eliminates the need for slow lumbering trams.


Remember, the outer loop was a part of the original 1970's plan, maybe why it is kept intact inc' bridges. The curves to Rice Lane were not, neither was the Kirkdale tunnel either. Now it looks like a great enhancement to the city's transport and to a footy club as well.

Below: Canada Dock Branch Line in Blue. Northern Line in black, Kirkdale in the North, Lime Street in the South. A point to point line at the mo'. The tunnel can be seen and WHP is at the top where it says Walton.
http://i29.tinypic.com/68dm6e.jpg

LFC and EFC could both have a stadium at Walton Hall Park and the station serve both. WHP is not far from both clubs. The park is by far the better solution to Stanley Park being on the other side of Queens Drive.

[Waterways]

Ged, here is Kirkdale station. The red line is the Canada Dock Branch Line running "under" the station in a deep cutting at the bottom where it enters a tunnel. Platforms could be built in the cutting with stairs up to the existing ground level station. This may entail cutting into rock, so not cheap.

The tunnel to Rice Lane is on the same level as the Merseyrail Line and is clearly seen in the rock face. The tunnel is seen from the platforms. It was used until the mid to late 1970s. The line out of the tunnel from the outer loop easily merges into the existing Merseyrail line at this station being on the same level. It runs in the station running at the other side of the existing platform.

The line ran out of the Kirkdale to Rice Lane tunnel heading south then entered a tunnel into Huskisson Dock freight yard.

http://i31.tinypic.com/2wdvxfp.jpg
Courtesy of Multimap

[Waterways]

The outer loop via Kirkdale and the tunnel, could be recommissioned in phases as money is available. The outer loop still has the bridges in place.

First phase:


The track in place
A station at the stadium
Platforms at Kirkdale
Station at West Derby as it is in place


The above gives stations at: Kirkdale, the stadium at WHP, west Derby as the station is intact, and onto Hunts X and South Parkway. All the existing Northern Line stations are still available. This shifts fans quickly and the loop is in operation for the community, albeit in a limited form.

Second phase gives stations at:

Norris Green, Clubmoor, Knotty Ash & Gateacre. Childwall and maybe Broad Green as well. Then no need for trams.

[loudon]

Did,nt know much about the railways in Liverpool but I do now,what a belting discussion by all of you,Thanks.

[Waterways]

Here is the Sainsbury's brochure to link with Everton FC and build a stadium on Walton Hall Park. Everton went with Tesco in Kirkby.

http://www.keioc.net/uploads/images/walton_hall_park/walton-hall-park.jpg
Walton Hall Park

http://www.keioc.net/uploads/images/walton_hall_park/seddon-sketch.jpg
The stadium and store

Sainsbury's - click here to brochure (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2252675?secret_password=5p08hcnb7nevaftsw81)
All linked from the KEIOC site.

It is amazing that Sainsbury's never even looked at rapid-transit rail access which did and still can, run through the site. I would have thought the stadium/complex would have been better off the road and at near the Rice Lane flyover part of the park. Bottom left on the top shot.

[Waterways]

The map below

The red is the proposed recommissioned Outer-Loop line - still with trackbed and bridges intact. This brings on-line: Walton Hall Park, Norris Green, Clubmoor, West Derby, Knotty Ash, Broad Green, Childwall, Gateacre, Woolton & Halewood - eventually. The catchment area of the line is substantial.
The red star at the top at the end of the red line is Kirkdale station.
The red star at the bottom of the red line is Hunts X station.
The red/blue line is the Kirkdale-Rice Lane tunnel.
The red/blue star at the top is Walton Hall Park where an Everton FC or a shared stadium could be built with a high throughput station. Trains leave the stadium both ways.
The green dotted line is the existing Northern line that creates a full city loop with the Outer-Loop - trains can just go around the loop, as they partially do on the Wirral Line. Or just around the loop on matchdays to shift fans.
The pink lines are existing Northern Lines to: Southport, Ormskirk and Kirkby.
The light blue line is Edge Hill to the west and where it meets the red line is Broad Green. This could be made into a junction, as was planned to be so in the 1970's. That means the north and southern sections of the Outer-Loop can be two separate loops and will run right into Edge Hill junction and onto Lime St, or into Central if the Wapping tunnel is branched into Central. Or down the Waterloo tunnel and onto the Northern
Line at Waterloo Dock. All in the future, but would make the loop quickly accessible to the city centre.
The light blue star at the bottom is Liverpool South Parkway station with connections to London and Manchester and beyond.
The rails already bought for collapsed Merseytram scheme are stored in Hull and can be used for the loop offsetting some costs.


The setup covers much of what trams were to cover and shifts people fast with connections all over Merseyside. If a shared stadium, then Walton Hall Park is the ideal choice as the fans can be shifted in and out very fast and en-mass. It is cheap to implement as well. It is cheap to implement as most is actually in place. This gives a big bang-for-buck.

http://i32.tinypic.com/209leo1.jpg

[Waterways]

About Lords. Residents are organising against 20-20, as they view it as a new game played at the venue. Lords are talking of increasing the size of the ground and put a rapid-transit rail station under a newer larger stand to get through planning permission.

Many residents are pointing to the new Olympic stadium, which can hold 80,000. It is round in shape and can hold a cricket field. The stadium has no tenant after 2012. The solution is there, but will they take it up?

BTW, on one day during the England-Australia test at Lords at the weekend, the bars took ?250,000. Say only 25,000 drank out of the 32,000, that is an average of ?10 per head. No wonder they want to increase the capacity. At a 20-20 match at the Olympic stadium with 60,000 attending and 50,000 drinking that is half a ?million in one day at the bar. They hold two 20-20 matches in one day.

That is why EFC & LFC need to get fans in earlier and keep them in longer.

[petromax]

Waterways; you put a great argument forward for the outer loop. It has lots of benefits, even beyond football and it has been 'future-proofed' as you say, with all the stuff kept in place, and it has to happen.

However both stadium proposals are clearly struggling to say the least. It doesn't make sense to build new stadia either separately or together in new locations in this economy (or any other economy for that matter). If nobody can afford it - it's simply not going to happen.

The clubs can and should stay put, and extend. Then they can share infrastructure, parking and rail connections. The inner loop is harder to use as you say (differences in level etc) but it is much closer to both Goodison and Anfield. Critically, the lines are there and in use! (albeit for freight only at the moment)

If we still had the rail flyover at Edge Hill, wouldn't we be right into the West Coast Mainline?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40936407@N07/3769216278/

[petromax]

or was it a tunnel?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40936407@N07/3769290328/

[Waterways]

The clubs can and should stay put, and extend. Then they can share infrastructure, parking and rail connections. The inner loop is harder to use as you say (differences in level etc) but it is much closer to both Goodison and Anfield. Critically, the lines are there and in use! (albeit for freight only at the moment)

If we still had the rail flyover at Edge Hill, wouldn't we be right into the West Coast Mainline?


Staying put for both clubs is a no, no. The image of the two locations is clear negative to the city and these are two top clubs that will attract Overseas visitors regularly. To be frank, both clubs are surrounded by districts that resemble dumps. No disrespect to the people living there. The city has to put its best foot forward at all times. One Irish girl last week said to me that "Liverpool was a shoite hole" - she had never been to Liverrpol, but such is the poor image of the city. I have had negative feedback from many people and all because of visits to football grounds. Image is ultra important.

The Canada Dock Branch Line is to be electrified within 4 years for freight. Merging into Merseyrail is then easy.

The city f'ked up and should have insisted than any new stadium has adjacent rapid transit rail station. How anyone with half a drain does not insist on this point when the city has a rapid transit rail system is beyond me. No joined up thinking. Then they would have to move, but there many suitable site on Merseyrail lines, so not an issue. But this is Liverpool where the glass is always half empty and common sense need not apply.

The WCML is accessible down the current tracks. Fast Metro systems prefer to have fast uninterrupted routes, so flyovers are suitable for them. From memory, the flyover took traffic from Wapping Tunnel to the WCML - a flying junction. What fools allowed the rail infrastructure to be dismantled? But this is Liverpool.

[pablo42]

Well said Waterways. The City Fathers have got to show off our best face.

[petromax]

Two 'new' stadia, Stanley Park given back to the city, regeneration of the housing in the area, direct link to public transport on the branch line, what they call a 'leisure destination' (like Wembley), part of Liverpool's bid for the World Cup. What's not to like?

By the way, I think the Canada branch misses the WCML (via Allerton) by a couple of hundred yards at the Olive Mount Chord unless we're back to shunting backwards at Edge Hill?

[Waterways]

By the way, I think the Canada branch misses the WCML (via Allerton) by a couple of hundred yards at the Olive Mount Chord unless we're back to shunting backwards at Edge Hill?

The new to be electrified Liverpool-Manchester line and crosses the WCML.

[petromax]

"The double-track, 32 mile long route from Liverpool Lime Street station to Manchester Victoria station via Huyton and Newton-le-Willows will be electrified...."

Although this has to cross the WCML somewhere, is there an electrified junction proposed (presumably at Earlestown) and will trains actually run through it instead of across it?

Access to the footie would still be better and quicker on the dock branch line connecting via Allerton as the existing mainline to London (or anywhere other than Manchester - can't see many 'home' fans coming from Manchester...!). It would also pick up the airport at South Parkway (and ultimately run on into town for a good night out!)

[Waterways]

"The double-track, 32 mile long route from Liverpool Lime Street station to Manchester Victoria station via Huyton and Newton-le-Willows will be electrified...."

Although this has to cross the WCML somewhere, is there an electrified junction proposed (presumably at Earlestown) and will trains actually run through it instead of across it?


I believe Manchester will use the junction to go north to Glasgow. Th section Manchester Earlestown is to be done first. This does not make sense as the line can be used by Merseyrail and Liverpool Docks.



Access to the footie would still be better and quicker on the dock branch line connecting via Allerton as the existing mainline to London (or anywhere other than Manchester - can't see many 'home' fans coming from Manchester...!). It would also pick up the airport at South Parkway (and ultimately run on into town for a good night out!)

The Outer Loop will run directly to South Parkway and London connections, when they lengthen the platform. The southern Manchester line runs via South Parkway, although not electrified. The other way, trains could run through the Kirkdale tunnel to Kirkdale and back to the centre via Sandhills.

The 1970's plan for the Outer Loop was to make Broad Green a junction. This means trains can drop into Edge Hill, for Manchester and London connections, and the centre at Lime St. Or right into the centre using either of the disused tunnels. This junction also means stations on the Loop get to the centre quicker. All in the far future.

The Canada Dock Branch (Bootle Line) can get them to Edge Hill, which is not big enough for large volumes. Trains from Southport could go via Anfield to Lime St or west at Edge Hill To St Helens.

[petromax]

I believe Manchester will use the junction to go north to Glasgow. Th section Manchester Earlestown is to be done first. This does not make sense as the line can be used by Merseyrail and Liverpool Docks.

Yes, I see but I don't think there are plans to electrify the line to the docks (the Canada Dock branch line). If there were - maybe the dream of an electrified link to Europe...? Liverpool, the most westerly port in EUROPE?




...The 1970's plan...All in the far future....

I see your point on the outer loop. It's a good thing for many reasons and should happen; but does it do the Lord's thing? Only if the stadia are moved on top of it and I just don't think this needs to happen or in fact can happen (unless there's several hundred million to spare for a new stadium) The outer loop is ideal in many ways but it is a little too far in the future.

For me, the Canada dock line is there. We're talking millions or tens of millions to get to it (from the stadia) and to electrify it, not hundreds of millions to rebuild the loop line.

What do we get? A national centre of football excellence based around Stanley Park and a great attraction for the World Cup bid for 2018

[Waterways]

Yes, I see but I don't think there are plans to electrify the line to the docks (the Canada Dock branch line). If there were - maybe the dream of an electrified link to Europe...? Liverpool, the most westerly port in EUROPE?


The recent document issued by Network Rail stated it would be, well it is the only line to the docks so must be.

From doc:
Freight

70. Electrification of this route will offer electric haulage options for freight.
There will be an alternative route to Liverpool docks for electrically-operated
freight trains, and better opportunities of electrified access to the proposed
freight terminal at Parkside near Newton-le-Willows.

The document was here, but has been pulled:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/railelectrification.pdf


It is absurd to start the Manchester end first. Completing the Liverpool to St. Helens/Wigan section must be priority as it will service long haul and local services (Merseyrail). This will delay any expansion of Merseyrail by two years, yet give little benefit to Manchester.

The electrification of Liverpool-Manchester and the Canada Dock Branch Line has many bonuses for Liverpool.:

Fast link to Mcr,
another Merseyrail line to also take football crowds
Reaches Bootle,
increased and more flexible freight traffic onto the WCML,
a Merseyrail line to St. Helens
Maybe another line to Sth Parkway via Allerton.


That is maybe three new Merseyrail lines, increased freight and fast link to an adjacent city. Not bad if the Canada Dock Line can join the electrification.

Once a stadium gets the go ahead they get built quite quickly with modern construction methods. When LFC announce a start date will mean the rail link will not be ready in time causing chaos in the city as Liverpool FC want a 73,000 capacity. The Canada Dock Branch Line must be electrified ASAP.



I see your point on the outer loop. It's a good thing for many reasons and should happen; but does it do the Lord's thing?


If it runs under the stadium, yes. Fans go directly into the stadium. The cost of merging the two must be less than building two separate structures.



The outer loop is ideal in many ways but it is a little too far in the future.


It is there waiting with bridges and a long tunnel with easy meshing into the Northern Line at Kirkdale.



For me, the Canada dock line is there. We're talking millions or tens of millions to get to it (from the stadia) and to electrify it, not hundreds of millions to rebuild the loop line.


That is one point for it, is that it has lines on it. Another is that it is to be electrified. However it is impractical. OK, a line can run through the short Canada Dock tunnel and curve south onto the Northern Line. More expense.



What do we get? A national centre of football excellence based around Stanley Park and a great attraction for the World Cup bid for 2018

Stanley Park is a poor location and primarily residential And a rapid-transit rail link is not at the stadium, meaning residents will be inconvenienced as 100's of fans walk the 1/2 mile to the station through their homes. The station MUST be at the stadium. Walton Hall Park with re-commissioned Outer Loop is the way.

[petromax]

Whilst there is no must about anything, it's good to see that it is intended to electrify Canada Branch.

I don't follow you. The line from Huyton to St Helens is not on the newly announced electrified route to MCR Victoria.

Right now, there is no money for building new stadiums and new lines to get to them at anything up to $200m a kilometre for new lines...

Ok, to be miserly let's say $20m/km = $300m for the 15km from Kirkdale to Hunt's Cross, it could be twice or three times that, not half that.

Whereas a new station on the Canada Branch line (Walton or Breck Road); ?6m. Electrification; no additional cost. Olive Mount Chord connection; done. Kirkdale connection; ?6m-?10m? Where do I sign?

I would walk half a mile to the match. I do that from the pub anyway.

[petromax]

... residents will be inconvenienced as 100's of fans walk the 1/2 mile to the station through their homes....

...as they have done for time in memory.

The residents would also benefit from the community regeneration committed to by the club(s) as a contractural commitment in their planning consents. If a way can be found to make the new stadia affordable and actually get them built, then the regeneration of the area, improvement of housing stock, streets and environment WILL take place.

[Waterways]

...as they have done for time in memory.


Two wrong do not make a right.



The residents would also benefit from the community regeneration committed to by the club(s) as a contractural commitment in their planning consents.


There has been two large stadia in the locale for over 117 years. They have done nothing for the areas, so why should more and larger stadia do any difference? Answer? They will not.



If a way can be found to make the new stadia affordable and actually get them built, then the regeneration of the area, improvement of housing stock, streets and environment WILL take place.

There will be no regeneration in the area with a large stadium with no direct rapid-transit rail station to take 2/3 of the fans within a hour.

You go for the optimum solution, which is in easy reach.

[petromax]

There are legally binding agreements within the Anfield planning consent for regeneration. LFC have a separate group within the club to deliver their regeneration commitments arising out of their consent. This is what delivers regeneration - legal obligation!! (see Skerries Road and Stanley Park)

Spending close to a billion on an unnecessary stadium and an over-egged rail link is a long way from the optimum.

[Waterways]

There are legally binding agreements within the Anfield planning consent for regeneration.


If you think that will keep the area in top nick for over a 100 years with a large stadium there you are in cloud cuckoo land :) It will dwindle away to a slum again. No one wants to live near a large stadium.



Spending close to a billion on an unnecessary stadium and an over-egged rail link is a long way from the optimum.

The cost of the stadium may be unnecessary, but the line will promote the districts it runs through. Having stadium on it, it will sing. Billion? You made that up.

[petromax]

If you think that will keep the area in top nick for over a 100 years with a large stadium there you are in cloud cuckoo land :) It will dwindle away to a slum again. No one wants to live near a large stadium.

There's more to keeping an area going than splashing some cash about and then leaving it for a hundred years.




The cost of the stadium may be unnecessary, but the line will promote the districts it runs through. Having stadium on it, it will sing. Billion? You made that up.

An unnecessary stadium won't get done and will benefit no one.

Latest published estimates for the new stadium were in the order of ?400-600m. An 80,000 seater stadium, joint or single club, would be towards the top of that range, very possibly higher. Restoration of outer loop line, conservatively ?300m (see above). Close enough to a billion as makes no difference.

Extend Goodison and Anfield, new station on Canada Branch line, kick-start Anfield Breckfield and Walton regeneration, create a sports and leisure centre of excellence based around Stanley Park, be a host for the World Cup in 2018 and attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to the city and show it off in a fantastic light - in the order of half the cost and within reach of the clubs ie. achievable.

The outer loop is for another day. It would be great, but not just now and not via football.

[Waterways]

An unnecessary stadium


Which unnecessary stadium are you on about?

The outer loop is mainly intact. It is virtually mothballed with even the bridges still there. It is cheap to recommission. It is the socio/economic benefits the line would bring in a wider sense and it will preclude trams. Put a stadium on Walton Hall Park, EFC, LFC, or both or shared, on the site, and the line comes into its own. A true asset.

[petromax]

There are no rails on the outer loop. It is a cycle path!! and by the way, have seen what's left of the head height at the M62 flyover?

A new stadium is unnecessary when the existing one(s) can be extended.

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting anything from this... so if you don't mind I'll leave it.

[Waterways]

There are no rails on the outer loop. It is a cycle path!! and by the way, have seen what's left of the head height at the M62 flyover?


The outer loops trackbed is still there, only fences and rails need be installed. The important and expensive bridges are still there. Head height? Lower the trackbed at that point, not an engineering show-stopper.



A new stadium is unnecessary when the existing one(s) can be extended.


Those two crocks cannot be extended economically. GP is one of the most landlocked grounds in the league - why do think EFC are moving? The two of them are in districts that give a poor image to the city. The two of them are surrounded by poor transport infrastructure. They both need large capacity stadia to compete in the current Premier/Euro football setups. They both need high throughput rapid-transit rail stations next to the stadia, not a mile away. All simple really. The city has a rapid-transit rail system and suitable sites, the clubs must be made to use them.



I'm sorry, but I'm not getting anything from this... so if you don't mind I'll leave it.

You will get a lot if you understand the points put across.

[petromax]

I think we are all very capable of understanding what you say despite your internal contradictions and inconsistencies and your highly selective method of argument.

You offer no grounds for your assumptions on either the rail engineering or the existing stadia and you are incredibly naive in your assertion that the clubs can be 'made' to do anything.

Maybe just maybe, there are people out there who know more about what they are talking about than you do and perhaps they can see what they are looking at from more than one narrow perspective.

[scouse smurf]

That's not gonna convince him. As much as we love WW he's very stubborn when he's got his point of view and it's best to just let him have it. No offence meant, WW :smirk:

[Waterways]

despite your internal contradictions and inconsistencies


What might these be?

<snip babble>

[Waterways]

That's not gonna convince him. As much as we love WW he's very stubborn when he's got his point of view and it's best to just let him have it. No offence meant, WW :smirk:

I go on fact and intelligent assessment.

[petromax]

That's not gonna convince him. As much as we love WW he's very stubborn when he's got his point of view and it's best to just let him have it. No offence meant, WW :smirk:

Why stint? the man is offensive.

[scouse smurf]

Why stint? the man is offensive.

Because, in the main, this is a pretty friendly and pleasant natured forum and I guess we just try and live together in peace putting up with our little ways, whatever they are.

Plus I've hid under the table enough so don't really want any more 'heated' threads lol

[Waterways]

Why stint? the man is offensive.

No. Direct and assertive and don't suffer fools gladly.

What are these "internal contradictions and inconsistencies" you are on about?

[petromax]

I come here for reasoned debate and for information, not insult or hubris, but since you insist, just take one example - that of the outer loop; you say the outer loop is cheap but suggest that lowering the rail bed is, let's say 'relatively simple' (to be kind to your argument).

To put it simply for you, for every metre drop in level, the bed would need to be lowered for 100m or thereabouts in both directions. So for an approximate 5m drop in bed level (and disregarding engineering to the bridges over) that's 1km of re-engineered levels or not quite going on for 10% of the total length of loop of 15.2km. To say it is cheap and to play down the importance of expensive works is 'contradictory'.

Also remember this is just one issue on the current alignment. I see there are sections that have been built on; I believe there are tunnels in a poor state of repair; junctions at either end but particularly the Hunt's Cross end have disappeared. I am not saying the outer loop can't be done or shouldn't be done. I am saying that it is not cheap and that it is a more expensive and hence LESS realistic way of servicing stadia than the alternative which already has a working alignment, tracks and signalling systems for running trains!

You compare the cost of the outer loop with Canada Dock Branch claiming it only needs 'rails and fences' and you ignore the bulk of the cost in engineering, signalling systems and electrification which the CDB either already has or in the case of electrification will shortly have, at no cost to the stadia (the stadia are after all what this thread is about). This is 'inconsistent'.

Championing causes is all very fine but each much stand on its own merits even within the bigger picture of the city's regeneration. You cannot put your hand in someone else's pocket to pay for your pet cause. Objectivity and respect for alternative opinion is a good place from which to make changes for the better.

[Ged]

There is another forum that WW and I go on which is more of a debating platform when it comes to people in the know on such subjects as the rail network, trams, stadia etc. WW's stance on some of what is lauded on here has been pretty much dismissed. For instance sweeping whole housing estates in Speke or industrial units in Kirkdale away is far more complicated than MrWW would have us believe - Lfc with all their clout couldn't even move a couple of old dears from their house in Kemlyn Road for over a decade. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't take to heart too much what this old eccentric says :)

[Waterways]

I come here for reasoned debate and for information, not insult or hubris,



Can you point to any insult? I am intrigued.



but since you insist, just take one example - that of the outer loop; you say the outer loop is cheap but suggest that lowering the rail bed is, let's say 'relatively simple' (to be kind to your argument).


To dismiss a whole mothballed line because a small height problem is laughable.



To put it simply for you, for every metre drop in level, the bed would need to be lowered for 100m or thereabouts in both directions. So for an approximate 5m drop in bed level (and disregarding engineering to the bridges over) that's 1km of re-engineered levels or not quite going on for 10% of the total length of loop of 15.2km. To say it is cheap and to play down the importance of expensive works is 'contradictory'.


That is not an expensive undertaking when re-commissioning a whole line.



Also remember this is just one issue on the current alignment. I see there are sections that have been built on; I believe there are tunnels in a poor state of repair; junctions at either end but particularly the Hunt's Cross end have disappeared.


The curve at Hunts X is still there - the trackbed. It needs a track and fences.



I am not saying the outer loop can't be done or shouldn't be done. I am saying that it is not cheap and that it is a more expensive and hence LESS realistic way of servicing stadia than the alternative which already has a working alignment, tracks and signalling systems for running trains!


As most is there it can only be cheap. Stop trying be a smartie homing in on cost when you haven't a clue. Most is there, even bridges, so massive savings.



(the stadia are after all what this thread is about). This is 'inconsistent'.


A point I made was that EFC & LFC should not be granted Planning Permission unless rapid-transit rail is incorporated in the stadia design. Liverpool has a rapid-transit network so it must be used for glaringly obvious reasons. Is there suitable site? Yes! Walton Hall Park with an adjacent mothballed line, the Outer Loop, with also a tunnel that takes the line into the city centre. It gives great connectivity to mainline stations.

Not only is it good for footy traffic, The line runs through large parts of Liverpool unserved by rapid-transit rail, parts that were to have lumbering-transport trams serve them. The money used for trams can fund opening this needed line, which can be improved in the future if the Broad Green 1970s junction is taken up again.



Championing causes is all very fine but each much stand on its own merits even within the bigger picture of the city's regeneration. You cannot put your hand in someone else's pocket to pay for your pet cause. Objectivity and respect for alternative opinion is a good place from which to make changes for the better.

You clearly do not get it. Get the points, see what it does for the socio/economic fabric of the city. The money is there as it was to be used for cancelled trams. You are a typical glass is always half empty Liverpudlian. The city breeds them. Be positive.

[petromax]

I am sorry you can't see an insult even when you are one :)

[Waterways]

There is another forum that WW and I go on which is more of a debating platform when it comes to people in the know on such subjects as the rail network, trams, stadia etc. WW's stance on some of what is lauded on here has been pretty much dismissed. For instance sweeping whole housing estates in Speke or industrial units in Kirkdale away is far more complicated than MrWW would have us believe - Lfc with all their clout couldn't even move a couple of old dears from their house in Kemlyn Road for over a decade. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't take to heart too much what this old eccentric says :)

I only go on this forum Ged. Sweeping way Speke? Good idea. Lots of it is like a war zone anyone. An isolated estate, surrounded by industry that stands in the way of airport expansion. A good case for winding the place down for the sake of city progress

What industrial units in Kirkdale? I said that Ged? New to me. I can see a good case for getting rid of many and putting them in proper industrial units elsewhere though.

Ged, unfortunately we can't rebuild garden tenements any more. Life moves on. ;) We move on for the better.

Ged, go to other cities and see how they do it. Get around a bit and look.

[Ged]

I think you might be daring/tempting me to post up your other postings on SSC there WW ;)

You don't go on it now because you were banned so a lot of people must have these 'perceived' insults.

Anyway, You've mentioned the ground being in Speke and the housing estate being sacrificed for it citing that the training ground is now in Halewood (want me to show you it to refresh your memory?) - nothing to do with the airport expansion.

You also said that Sandhills industrial units need to be compulsory purchased and demolished for the new stadium going there - i'm looking at in now on SSC - (want me to post that up too as well as their members reference to you as Bay City and JohnMK being the one and same as WW)

Or are you dismissing those claims as stupid now???? :PDT11:unibrow:

[Ged]

As for the Gardens tennies my mate, I don't want them rebuilding, just recounting nostalgic memories and if there wasn't a call for that, then there wouldn't be close on 200,000 hits on my site. ;)

However, you'll find that plenty do still live in them, they're now called Acorn, or Abbeygate or St. Annes apartments though and they're still scattered throughout the city like Toxteth, Wavertree, Everton, Dingle, Old Swan etc.

And believe it not, there's also still people living in a large area of Canning in lovely majestic houses, loads in big villas on Merton Road, Hawthorne Road - Bootle, in beautiful sandstone houses in Crosby and Woolton too - go out and take a look - none of them have died of being cold either ;)

[Waterways]

As for the Gardens tennies my mate, I don't want them rebuilding, just recounting nostalgic memories and if there wasn't a call for that, then there wouldn't be close on 200,000 hits on my site. ;)

However, you'll find that plenty do still live in them, they're now called Acorn, or Abbeygate or St. Annes apartments though and they're still scattered throughout the city like Toxteth, Wavertree, Everton, Dingle, Old Swan etc.

And believe it not, there's also still people living in a large area of Canning in lovely majestic houses, loads in big villas on Merton Road, Hawthorne Road - Bootle, in beautiful sandstone houses in Crosby and Woolton too - go out and take a look - none of them have died of being cold either ;)

Ged, I am fully aware of the old gardens being updated and that some old houses are still occupied. All of the old gardens have high carbon footprints and they should have been demolished. We have moved on in technology since they were built.

200,000? Terrific. Nostalgia Ged. Few want to return to the Liverpool of their childhoods.

[Waterways]

I think you might be daring/tempting me to post up your other postings on SSC there WW ;)

You don't go on it now because you were banned so a lot of people must have these 'perceived' insults.


Ged I was banned because of of stating political fact, which I did here, which the idiot mod didn't like. Can't account for idiots mods.

I really don't like wall to wall concrete 40 floors high either.



Anyway, You've mentioned the ground being in Speke and the housing estate being sacrificed for it citing that the training ground is now in Halewood (want me to show you it to refresh your memory?) - nothing to do with the airport expansion.


Ged I know exactly where the training ground is. That isolated estate need removing for airport expansion. The greater good of the city comes first, not some run down council estate.



You also said that Sandhills industrial units need to be compulsory purchased and demolished for the new stadium going there


Well if a stadium is to go there then they are CPOd, that is common sense and an industrial units were CPOd for the Emigrates stadium. I know you have no vision or clearly not an ideas man obsessed with the nostalgic past.

You want to keep scruffy old industrial units, other do not. You do not want to progress, others do.



- i'm looking at in now on SSC - (want me to post that up too as well as their members reference to you as Bay City and JohnMK being the one and same as WW)

Or are you dismissing those claims as stupid now???? :PDT11:unibrow:

Not me Ged, I went as Liverpool Playboy and Bay City. Each time banned because the mod didn't like political facts I gave, how it is - not views. Even one of the guys from Manchester complained. As I say you can't account for an idiot mod. 10,000 swords in the hands of young children.
I only went on that forum as the viewing rate is high. To counter the inane garbage they go on about in Liverrpool. Experts? on that forum? Who? There is one lauding trams, who works for rail consultancy - vested interest.

You are getting personal not me. One here accused me insults a few time. I have asked to to show them. None have been shown.

Does this forum breed them?

[petromax]

...Can't account for idiots mods.

...I really don't like wall to wall concrete 40 floors high either...

...for airport expansion...

...if a stadium is to go there then they are CPOd, that is common sense...

...I know you have no vision or clearly not an ideas man obsessed with the nostalgic past.

...scruffy old industrial units...

...You do not want to progress, others do...

...I went as Liverpool Playboy and Bay City...

...Each time banned because the mod didn't like political facts I gave...

...how it is - not views. Even one of the guys from Manchester complained...

...As I say you can't account for an idiot mod...

...10,000 swords in the hands of young children...

...the inane garbage they go on about in Liverrpool. Experts?...

...There is one lauding trams, who works for rail consultancy - vested interest...

...One here accused me insults a few time...

Everybody but you is out of step. You call people fools and you say they have no imagination or intelligence. This is enough; but no need to list your insults or your preconceptions. You do it yourself. It blinds you. Cheers:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[petromax]

As for the Gardens tennies my mate, I don't want them rebuilding, just recounting nostalgic memories and if there wasn't a call for that, then there wouldn't be close on 200,000 hits on my site...

...and so there is. I remember being terrified by them as a child - wouldn't go near them, but there's something about community in them that's worth remembering and worth keeping and maybe encouraging in the new.

[petromax]

...All of the old gardens have high carbon footprints and they should have been demolished...

The single largest contributor (including energy in life time useage) to carbon footprint is the energy used in the creation of the building materials and in the building operations themselves. It is thus very signficantly greener to recycle old buildings for new use rather than to demolish them, deal with waste and rebuild.

and before you say it WW, I haven't made this up. I do know what I am talking about and I have no vested interest. It's what you might call a fact.

[Ged]

So in saying you want buildings of high carbon footprint demolishing WW, I take that also to mean the whole of the Canning area - is that correct :rolleyes:

I too want to progress and a perfectly good site such as the tunnel loop which is overgrown with weeds in an area that needs regeneration is so easily discounted by you as not big enough when a leading world stadium construction company says it is - who should we believe WW :rolleyes::eek::shock:

[petromax]

...not big enough when a leading world stadium construction company says it is - who should we believe WW :rolleyes::eek::shock:


Yeh, Wimbledon, Wembley, O2 Arena; what do HOK know!!! :rolleyes:

[Waterways]

but no need to list your insults

Please list these mysterious insults, as I would be interested to read them.

[Waterways]

The single largest contributor (including energy in life time useage) to carbon footprint is the energy used in the creation of the building materials and in the building operations themselves. It is thus very signficantly greener to recycle old buildings for new use rather than to demolish them, deal with waste and rebuild.

and before you say it WW, I haven't made this up. I do know what I am talking about and I have no vested interest. It's what you might call a fact.

You are on about the energy life cycle - embedded energy. The same can be said for all products. But right now anything that uses less energy is a good thing, for clearly obvious reasons.

[petromax]

...clearly obvious reasons.


Right now, today, if you knock down an occupied and running, albeit inefficient old building and build a new one in its place, even if that uses less energy to heat and/or cool it, you will increase the carbon footprint.

[Waterways]

So in saying you want buildings of high carbon footprint demolishing WW, I take that also to mean the whole of the Canning area - is that correct :rolleyes:


They are buildings of historic importance, the garden were not. They can have the insulation values uprated far more easily than brick block with landing protruding acts as heat sinks.



I too want to progress and a perfectly good site such as the tunnel loop which is overgrown with weeds in an area that needs regeneration is so easily discounted by you as not big enough when a leading world stadium construction company says it is - who should we believe WW :rolleyes::eek::shock:

The stadium company would say that. The Loop site is totally crap. A stadium needs a rapid transit rail station incorporated. Guess what, Liverpool has a one and people ignore it. The Loop site cannot incorporate rapid-transit rail. If any is run in it will be footy traffic only, so EFC would have to foot the biog bill. WHP can have all and funded out of public fund and all benefit.

The Loop is another ill-thought out idea, as is the Stanley Park stadium. A stadium without rapid-transit. LFC must be daft to design a stadium without rapid-transit as they have all to gain by having it. The city is mad to allow such nuisance creators at footy stadia not have use it. London look at Liverpool and think the city is daft. EFC and LFC need rethinks on where to their stadia. EFC, hopefully not in Kirkby.

[Waterways]

Right now, today, if you knock down an occupied and running, albeit inefficient old building and build a new one in its place, even if that uses less energy to heat and/or cool it, you will increase the carbon footprint.

It depends on what materials you use. Millions of new homes using 50% less energy reduces emission substantially.

[petromax]

Please list them as I would be interested to read them.

I have told you what they are. I could go back through posts but I won't list them again. You don't see them. You are a blind man.

[Waterways]

I have told you what they are.

You have not. To make it easy for you just list these mysterious insults that are on this thread.

[petromax]

It depends on what materials you use. Millions of new home using 50% less energy reduces emission substantially.

It does not. Energy efficient materials (polyurethane insulants and the like, low-emissitivity glass etc) that reduce life cycle costs have a predominantly high carbon footprint in manufacture and in the case of timber are difficult to sustain. The working of the materials in manufacutre is carbon intensive as is the transport to site and the building processes on site.

The reduction of emissions in new homes only reduces the increase of carbon footrint less than a new home built from high energy materials would. In short, they make a bad situation slightly better. They cannot compete from a carbon point of view with keeping existing buildings with or without upgrading.

[petromax]

You have not. To make it easy for you just list these mysterious insults that are on this thread.

Do you seriously think I can be bothered?

[petromax]

They are buildings of historic importance, the garden were not. They can have the insulation values uprated far more easily than brick block with landing protruding acts as heat sinks.

Both are historically important for their own reasons and if you think 9" or 13.5" solid brickwork is easy to upgrade thermally without disruption of historic interiors and at reasonable cost, then you know rather less about it than you think you do.




The stadium company would say that.

HOK were paid for an independent assessment and they gave it. They have no other interest other than not getting sued for bad advice


The Loop site is totally crap. A stadium needs a rapid transit rail station incorporated.

It does not. There are plenty without.


WHP can have all and funded out of public fund and all benefit.

Get Real!! Just exactly where will the money come from?


EFC and LFC need rethinks on where to their stadia. EFC, hopefully not in Kirkby.

Maybe they do and maybe it shouldn't, but who can afford hundreds of millions more than is feasible. Even if the city had the power to insist on new rail loops and extraordinary third party benefits, which it does not, absolutely NOTHING would get built on this basis.

Make a plan that works, is feasible and will get built or talk about it for the next decade or so instead.

[Waterways]

Both are historically important for their own reasons and if you think 9" or 13.5" solid brickwork is easy to upgrade thermally without disruption of historic interiors and at reasonable cost, then you know rather less about it than you think you do.


More insults. I know "exactly" what I am on about. I said the Georgian quarter is of historical importance. The Gardens are not.




HOK were paid for an independent assessment and they gave it. They have no other interest other than not getting sued for bad advice


Their advice is bad. They never took into account rapid-transit rail.



Get Real!! Just exactly where will the money come from?


The same place that the trams money came from and the London Crossrail came from as well.

You haven't much a clue. Don't take that as an insult, it is just the way it is.

[petromax]

More insults. I know "exactly" what I am on about. I said the Georgian quarter is of historical importance. The Gardens are not.

Their advice is bad. They never took into account rapid-transit rail.

The same place that the trams money came from and the London Crossrail came from as well.

You haven't much a clue. Don't take that as an insult, it is just the way it is.

Saying it's so, don't make it so! An insult is an insult. I think calling someone clueless is pretty insulting and you compound it with arrogance.

Without bothering to track back and in this post alone, you think yourself a better judge of architecture and its historical importance than anyone here; you believe yourself better qualified to assess the suitability of a site for a stadium than an organisation with immeasurable specialised experience and you blythely disregard the fact that there was no money for trams from any source actually and that Crossrail is funded on an entirely different basis of established demand.

That my friend, is just the way you are. If you like, you can take that as an insult.

[pablo42]

Fighting talk were I come from. Good job I moved.

[petromax]

Fighting talk were I come from. Good job I moved.

:)

[Waterways]

An insult is an insult. I think calling someone clueless is pretty insulting


Is isn't. I can insult you properly if you want.



Without bothering to track back and in this post alone, you think yourself a better judge of architecture and its historical importance than anyone here;


The Georgians are listed the gardens are not, well not that I know of.



you believe yourself better qualified to assess the suitability of a site for a stadium than an organisation with immeasurable specialised experience


I know when they don't have rapid-transit rail stations attached. The organisations are amateurs for not incorporating it. They area a waste of time.



That my friend, is just the way you are. If you like, you can take that as an insult.

Thank you. I am flattered.

[pablo42]

Gotta agree that to build a stadium without rail access is gonna end up a fiasco.

[petromax]

Is isn't. I can insult you properly if you want.

Feel free. You know you want to :unibrow:

[petromax]

Gotta agree that to build a stadium without rail access is gonna end up a fiasco.

I really don't disagree; but there is a whole lot cheaper option by building a station on existing lines either at Vauxhall if a stadium were in the Scotland Road Tunnel Loop or at Arkles Lane if it were in Stanley Park or at Anfield or at Walton for Goodison. Kirkby for Everton is a way of funding a new stadium but it can be done cheaper elsewhere.

Very, very few stadia actually have rail incorporated in the stadium. The expense is not considered generally necessary. Maybe there's a list?

[pablo42]

Maybe, just maybe, they should.

[scouse smurf]

I don't think the scotty rd ground option was ever a good idea. The main route into liverpool would be blocked with traffic, at least once a season ;)

Maybe whatever stadiums are built for the reds and blues they should include a direct tram link to the city centre, that would then allow easy access to the grounds from all areas.

[pablo42]

Where they build a stadium is one thing, where the railway are is another. Where there are railways, either used or unused, is something I aint got a clue in. Just seems to make sense to have rail access. I think it's still the most efficient way to move vast bodies of people. We need to coax people out of their cars, surely.

[scouse smurf]

Where they build a stadium is one thing, where the railway are is another. Where there are railways, either used or unused, is something I aint got a clue in. Just seems to make sense to have rail access. I think it's still the most efficient way to move vast bodies of people. We need to coax people out of their cars, surely.

if u look at the amount of fans on match days who walk from the city centre to the ground then although it would be nice to have a station nearby the ground it's far from essential and the ones that drive there would probably drive even if the station was in the ground.

I don't see why ppl should be coaxed out of their cars, they paid alot of money to be able to travel wherever at their own leisure so good luck to them

[pablo42]

if u look at the amount of fans on match days who walk from the city centre to the ground then although it would be nice to have a station nearby the ground it's far from essential and the ones that drive there would probably drive even if the station was in the ground.

I don't see why ppl should be coaxed out of their cars, they paid alot of money to be able to travel wherever at their own leisure so good luck to them

Yes, that's true. Lotsa people who come to the match these days are from out of town. People are already coaxed out of their cars with parking restrictions etc. It just seems that we should make it easy for people to use public transport.

[Waterways]

I really don't disagree; but there is a whole lot cheaper option by building a station on existing lines either at Vauxhall if a stadium were in the Scotland Road Tunnel Loop


Too far must be at the stadium. Vauxhall? Ged will have kittens. Some slum old businesses will need to be demolished.



or at Arkles Lane if it were in Stanley Park or at Anfield or at Walton for Goodison. Kirkby for Everton is a way of funding a new stadium but it can be done cheaper elsewhere.


Arkles Lane? Too far. Walton for GP? Forget GP they are moving.



Very, very few stadia actually have rail incorporated in the stadium. The expense is not considered generally necessary. Maybe there's a list?

Why do you need a list to have common sense. ? The station is best next to the stadium or under it.

[petromax]

It makes great sense to have an accessible rail link for fans who live here and for those who live further away. People can be encouraged to choose not to drive with reasonable cost rail fares and easy accessibility, but it should still be their choice.

Also the 'long march' from Lime Street has not been that safe for some visiting fans. These are various distances from a quick scout around on the internet:

Arsenal; Three or Ten minute walk to tube dependent on line
Old Trafford; incorporated station
Chelsea; Fulham Broadway, two minutes walk
Aston Villa; Whitton Station, five minutes walk
Man City; 15mins walk
Barcelona; 10 to 15mins walk from Metro or Tram
San Siro; about 15mins from Metro
Bayern Munich; incorporated station (but World Cup Stadium budget!!)
Ajax; two or 15 mins walk

Stations at either Vauxhall or Arkles Lane would fit into this range but you have to take the point on road traffic around Scottie Road.

[pablo42]

Too far must be at the stadium. Vauxhall? Ged will have kittens. Some slum old businesses will need to be demolished.



Arkles Lane? Too far. Walton for GP? Forget GP they are moving.



Why do you need a lost to have common sense. ? The station is best next to the stadium or under it.

Gotta agree WW, just makes sense.

[Waterways]

I don't think the scotty rd ground option was ever a good idea. The main route into liverpool would be blocked with traffic, at least once a season ;)

Maybe whatever stadiums are built for the reds and blues they should include a direct tram link to the city centre, that would then allow easy access to the grounds from all areas.

You to shift fans fast. Only rapid-transit high throughput station can shift 30,000-40,000 an hour. Trams will shift jack ****, and cause traffic jams.

The city has rapid transit rail so let's use it.

[scouse smurf]

Yes, that's true. Lotsa people who come to the match these days are from out of town. People are already coaxed out of their cars with parking restrictions etc. It just seems that we should make it easy for people to use public transport.


yeah, but that will never happen. cost cutting will see to that. can u imagine ever having constant trains every 5-10 minutes were u can actually sit down in peak hours?

What happened to the really useful smart buses ? it was nice to know what time a bus would arrive or if it had already been. I thought every bus would be like that by now, but no they're getting worse and they're often driven by ppl who don't give a toss about the timetable except the bus stop preceding the ones often used for time checkpoints

[pablo42]

yeah, but that will never happen. cost cutting will see to that. can u imagine ever having constant trains every 5-10 minutes were u can actually sit down in peak hours?

What happened to the really useful smart buses ? it was nice to know what time a bus would arrive or if it had already been. I thought every bus would be like that by now, but no they're getting worse and they're often driven by ppl who don't give a toss about the timetable except the bus stop preceding the ones often used for time checkpoints

True, seems to be a bit of motivation needed with the staff. Also a bit of support from the management. Nobody's perfect

[pablo42]

It makes great sense to have an accessible rail link for fans who live here and for those who live further away. People can be encouraged to choose not to drive with reasonable cost rail fares and easy accessibility, but it should still be their choice.

Also the 'long march' from Lime Street has not been that safe for some visiting fans. These are various distances from a quick scout around on the internet:

Arsenal; Three or Ten minute walk to tube dependent on line
Old Trafford; incorporated station
Chelsea; Fulham Broadway, two minutes walk
Aston Villa; Whitton Station, five minutes walk
Man City; 15mins walk
Barcelona; 10 to 15mins walk from Metro or Tram
San Siro; about 15mins from Metro
Bayern Munich; incorporated station (but World Cup Stadium budget!!)
Ajax; two or 15 mins walk

Stations at either Vauxhall or Arkles Lane would fit into this range but you have to take the point on road traffic around Scottie Road.

We shouldn't be following these people. We should lead.

[petromax]

Too far must be at the stadium. Vauxhall? Ged will have kittens. Some slum old businesses will need to be demolished.

Stanley Dock actually, on the viaduct on the Northern Line and no need for demolition - do try and keep up


Arkles Lane? Too far. Walton for GP? Forget GP they are moving.

Not too far at all, within easy walking distance. As for GP moving, you clearly know the result of the Inquiry before anyone else.


Why do you need a lost to have common sense. ? The station is best next to the stadium or under it.

Research is useful if you want to learn from other's experience and not repeat their mistakes. If there were such as thing as common sense you would see that.

[Waterways]

if u look at the amount of fans on match days who walk from the city centre to the ground then although it would be nice to have a station nearby the ground it's far from essential


If there is not a rapid-transit rail station to shift 30-40,000 per hour 60-73,000 will just grid-lock. The rail link will also entice fans to attend. In January, taking a Merseyrail station to the station under the stadium and entering directly into a stadium with the roof closed. I would go.



I don't see why ppl should be coaxed out of their cars, they paid alot of money to be able to travel wherever at their own leisure so good luck to them

Oh no! I can't believe he wrote that.

[scouse smurf]

You to shift fans fast. Only rapid-transit high throughput station can shift 30,000-40,000 an hour. Trams will shift jack ****, and cause traffic jams.

The city has rapid transit rail so let's use it.

I knew u'd rise to the tram comment ;)

Out of interest how close are the big US stadia to public transport. I would think that's the model to follow

[Waterways]

yeah, but that will never happen.

The do at Wembley and the Emirates, etc. Why would people in Liverrpool ignore a quick in and out rail system?

[petromax]

I knew u'd rise to the tram comment ;)

Out of interest how close are the big US stadia to public transport. I would think that's the model to follow

Since American Football lasts so long the arrivals are probably staggered more. Also the car would absolutely predominate. Massive parking lots

[scouse smurf]

If there is not a rapid-transit rail station to shift 30-40,000 per hour 60-73,000 will just grid-lock. The rail link will also entice fans to attend. In January, taking a Merseyrail station to the station under the stadium and entering directly into a stadium with the roof closed. I would go.

Oh no! I can't believe he wrote that.

What was up with me saying that ?

I don't think Everton or Liverpool really need fans that are only willing to go if they don't have to make any effort to get there. Both clubs have strong fan bases already, so making it easy to get to will only attract the prawn sandwich brigade... I assume u like prawns ;)

[pablo42]

I knew u'd rise to the tram comment ;)

Out of interest how close are the big US stadia to public transport. I would think that's the model to follow

Most of the US stadiums rely on the car. They generally have motorway access. They have the space and they were from an earlier time, not too worried about carbon footprint etc.

[petromax]

The do at Wembley and the Emirates, etc. Why would people in Liverrpool ignore a quick in and out rail system?

At the risk of repeating absolutely everything, just exactly where is this up and running low cost, affordable and buildable within our life time, in and out rail system?

[Waterways]

I knew u'd rise to the tram comment ;)

Out of interest how close are the big US stadia to public transport. I would think that's the model to follow

The model to follow is common sense. Wembley and the O2 Arena is the model. They shift the fans like zippo.

I can't believe anyone would ever argue about not incorporating rapid-transit rail as part of a design.

[Waterways]

What was up with me saying that ?


He wants to encourage cars.



I don't think Everton or Liverpool really need fans that are only willing to go if they don't have to make any effort to get there. Both clubs have strong fan bases already, so making it easy to get to will only attract the prawn sandwich brigade... I assume u like prawns ;)

The Emitrates is 60,000 full every game as it is easy to get to and the facilities superb.

[scouse smurf]

The model to follow is common sense. Wembley and the O2 Arena is the model. They shift the fans like zippo.

I can't believe anyone would ever argue about not incorporating rapid-transit rail as part of a design.

So what u're suggesting is we build a big white elephant for some millenium event, using lots of public money, and then wait for someone to think of an idea to use it or build a stadium which results in the team not being able to sign many world class players and falling away in the league

[petromax]

Yeah, but where is it and if not anywhere who can afford it?

[petromax]

So what u're suggesting is we build a big white elephant for some millenium event, using lots of public money, and then wait for someone to think of an idea to use it or build a stadium which results in the team not being able to sign many world class players and falling away in the league

Don't woory it won't happen. Nobody's got the money

[petromax]

The Emitrates is 60,000 full every game as it is easy to get to and the facilities superb.

and funded by a massive property development

[Waterways]

At the risk of repeating absolutely everything, just exactly where is this up and running low cost, affordable and buildable within our life time, in and out rail system?

It is called Merseyrail

[scouse smurf]

Don't woory it won't happen. Nobody's got the money

I'm not worried about it, I just think WW should realise that these places are in the country's capital and unfortunately that comes with lots of benefits that no other city gets

[scouse smurf]

It is called Merseyrail

How often do u use merseyrail ?

[pablo42]

I think we need a stadium that will be a tourist attraction on its own. They should share, pool resources. That stadium, shared or not should have good rail access.

[Waterways]

So what u're suggesting is we build a big white elephant for some millenium event

I was? 2000 was nine years ago.

[scouse smurf]

I was? 2000 was nine years ago.

has it started making money yet ? if so, how much of the building costs were written off ?

[Waterways]

I think we need a stadium that will be a tourist attraction on its own. They should share, pool resources. That stadium, shared or not should have good rail access.

The voice of common sense.

[petromax]

It is called Merseyrail

WAKE UP!!!! It doesn't run to anywhere that serves a stadium!!! It NEEDS TO BE BUILT!!!!!

[Waterways]

has it started making money yet ? if so, how much of the building costs were written off ?

What are you babbling about? :)

[Waterways]

WAKE UP!!!! It doesn't run to anywhere that serves a stadium!!! It NEEDS TO BE BUILT!!!!!

There are mothballed lines that can be run in, and also serve the local community.

[scouse smurf]

What are you babbling about? :)

What I'm babbling on about is the glowing example u've given cost a lot of money, which I don't think has been gained back yet (I could be wrong)

I agree about the joint stadium idea though but think it should be in stanley park

[petromax]

A shared stadium with shared infrastructure would make very good sense IF

1: the infrastructure costs were at their absolute minimum
2: anyone, absolutely anyone could fund a completely new stadium

[petromax]

oh and 3: if any actually WANTED to share

[Waterways]

I'm not worried about it, I just think WW should realise that these places are in the country's capital and unfortunately that comes with lots of benefits that no other city gets

Since when has only the capital had the benefit of common sense, and no one else?

[scouse smurf]

oh and 3: if any actually WANTED to share

I reckon they'd love to share, it's just the majority of fans are so against the idea

[petromax]

There are mothballed lines that can be run in, and also serve the local community.

At huge cost! Must we go over this again? A station on an existing line is the ONLY way forward.

As it happens LFC have planning consent without a rail link. If the city wants to provide it, I'm sure they'd be pleased but since they can't even fund the stadium - it's going nowhere

[pablo42]

Sadly, reckon so.

[Waterways]

What I'm babbling on about is the glowing example u've given cost a lot of money, which I don't think has been gained back yet (I could be wrong)

I agree about the joint stadium idea though but think it should be in stanley park

But there is no rapid-transit rail link and the stadium is in a grade 2 listed Victorian park and surrounded by residential houses. It is a very poor location, yet the city in their wisdom gave planning permission, but only for 60,000 and rapid-transit rail has to be there to go above and LFC want 73,000.

[Waterways]

At huge cost! Must we go over this again?


What figures do you have on this cost or are you making it up?



A station on an existing line is the ONLY way forward.


It isn't, a mothballed line and tunnel is still there waiting that serves the communities it runs through. It needs a lot of joined up thinking. Liverpool is devoid of this type of thinking. Others can join things up.



As it happens LFC have planning consent without a rail link. If the city wants to provide it, I'm sure they'd be pleased but since they can't even fund the stadium - it's going nowhere

Only to 60,000 and a foolish thing to give PP for that as well.

[petromax]

I reckon they'd love to share, it's just the majority of fans are so against the idea

You might be right but i haven't seen it; but sharing the infrastructure, the rail connection and the parking and roads, - two 'new' (refurbished and extended) stadia, a sports campus, a national attraction, lots of visitors, rail station, all in one place, World Cup hosts, Stanley Park, area regeneration; all good (and vaguely affordable)

[scouse smurf]

But there is no rapid-transit rail link and the stadium is in a grade 2 listed Victorian park and surrounded by residential houses. It is a very poor location, yet the city in their wisdom gave planning permission, but only for 60,000 and rapid-transit rail has to be there to go above and LFC want 73,000.


In case u've not noticed, we don't totally agree with the train link being essential, it's a nice to have at best, and we know ur opinion that it's essential.

I only think it's the best place because that's pretty much were the grounds are now. After seeing were Espanyol's new ground is then if I had to choose anywhere, then like u said earlier I'd suggest somewhere near the airport

[petromax]

What figures do you have on this cost or are you making it up?

It isn't, a mothballed line and tunnel is still there waiting that serves the communities it runs through. It needs a lot of joined up thinking. Liverpool is devoid of this type of thinking. Others can join things up.

Only to 60,000 and a foolish thing to give PP for that as well.

For goodness sake WW, just exactly how short is your memory? Read back to remind yourself

[Waterways]

You might be right but i haven't seen it; but sharing the infrastructure, the rail connection and the parking and roads, - two 'new' (refurbished and extended) stadia,

GP is not going to happen. The districts are also an embarrassment to the city. A very poor image.

[Waterways]

In case u've not noticed, we don't totally agree with the train link being essential, it's a nice to have at best, and we know ur opinion that it's essential.


Do you think we should scrap buses as well?

[scouse smurf]

Do you think we should scrap buses as well?

What are u babbling on about ? ;)

[petromax]

:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[scouse smurf]

:PDT_Xtremez_42:

I did tell ya WW is very stubborn lol

[pablo42]

Reckon we all agree that a rail link is preferable, whether the powers that be agree is another matter.

[petromax]

Support the city's cause by registering at the bottom of the page at

http://www.england2018bid.com/hostcity/liverpool

[wsteve55]

Gone a bit quiet round 'ere! :noid: